Screening of biosurfactants for crude oil contaminated soil washing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports experimental measurements on the ability of aqueous biosurfactant solutions (aescin, lecithin, rhamnolipid, saponin, and tannin) at removing Ekofisk crude oil from a laboratory contaminated soil under varying washing conditions. The oil removal performance of the biosurfactants was evaluated against a synthetic anionic surfactant (sodium dodecyl sulphate, SDS) using distilled water as a base case. The washing parameters and ranges tested were temperature, time, shaking speed, volume/mass ratio, and surfactant concentrations. Results indicated that washing temperature was the most influential parameter on the oil removal whilst washing time was the least. It was possible to obtain more than 80% oil removal at 50 °C for all the surfactant solutions, except lecithin, which yielded less than 15% removal. However, saponin, lecithin, aescin, and tannin removed less than 50% crude oil when tested at a temperature of 20 °C and other parameters. Soil washing was found to have considerable potential in removing crude oil from the contaminated soil therefore, we suggest further testing be performed with weathered contaminated soils. Key words: soil washing, biosurfactants, crude oil, contaminated soil, oil removal, oil spill treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".